The view from Left field, politics, entertainment, argument and insight into my world. For Socialism, peace and justice, against racism, sexism, sectarianism, nationalism and discrimination. Avanti Poplo!

Saturday, September 13, 2008

HITTING OLD LADIES OVER THE HEAD WITH A HALF BRICK IS A CRIME, EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST BUSINESS ( ARTHUR DALY )

“If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginningsAnd never breathe a word about your loss” (R Kipling) Again !

In the good old days of capitalism when a company went bust the head of the family and top man in the firm would sell everything and share what he could and then tearfully say his goodbyes and retire to his study with his cherished revolver. What are these modern capitalists like eh ? What ever happened to doing the decent thing, the honourable thing, Britain is going down the toilet. Where has the British “sword of truth and shield of fair play” gone ? Bankers, Holiday Travel firms and Airline Tycoons you are a big disappointment, British capitalism is ashamed of you.

I remember Freddie Laker and his Airways scam, Thatcher’s favourite capitalist businessman, his company went bust, and among the carnage of lost jobs and stranded passengers he managed to con people into a scam called “I’m backing Britain” to dig himself out of trouble. Younger people might find this hard to believe but people started sending this dodger money, air hostesses donated some of their wages to the cause. I remember thinking when the whole farce was over just what do these people think now about this how embarrassed/ angry are they now ? You see it turned out that when people had lost jobs and thousands on lost holidays that poor Freddie limped away to settle in his stud farm which was worth £7 M. and rendered untouchable by those who had taken the hit buy Freddie’s use of his “practiced lawyers”

Taxpayers today have to foot the bill when the immoral Capitalist gamblers schemes go pear shaped, they gamble with their customers money and get out after the crash with plenty saved away, lawyers make sure it can’t be touched, parasite is too good a word for them.

Unlike the decent one nation capitalist of old we have a new breed, I call them the Thatcher Capitalists, no sense of decency and completely dishonest and vicious, step up to the plate one “Paddy Power Turf Accountant“ the epitome of greed and rapacious capitalism, he is quoting odds on which holiday company/Airline will be next to go, go Paddy it’s an opportunity, a real modern example of the breed. Next we have the other Airlines, circling like vultures picking off the desperate stranded passengers and robbing them blind because they are helpless, a capitalist bean feast, “take no prisoners” picture those big bears feeding on the salmon in 6 “ of water.

Stories are emerging of people being offered flights and the prices changing several times before they get a ticket, I wonder which direction the prices went ? The more desperate their plight the higher goes the price, “what’s that madam, you have a sick child and you must get home, that will be another couple of quid”

The just thing to do here is for the Govt. to help as much as they can with the proviso that the greed driven gambling crooks walk away with nothing, Casino Economy ? Fine if you want to gamble but don’t come cap in hand with your sob stories if you lose, Don’t come to the British working people for help because we know what sympathy you people have for others we are witnessing it right now.

We could get rid of the monarchy and confiscate every one of their castles, estates, farms, private trains, planes, works of art, all of their baubles as well as ridding the aristocracy of the same and use some of that money. What do you think ?

The tax-payer wouldn't foot the bill if the government didn't pony up cash to failed businesses. And, erm, Labour are currently in power. So, maybe this is a whinge you need to have to party apparatchiks wearing the red rosette?

I think it was Naomi Klein that said asking a company not to generate as much profit as possible for it's shareholders was like asking a shark not to have teeth. Her point was government, if it's to regulate industry, needs to do so effectively. I can understand the Tories having no interest in this, but in 1997 we all expected better from Labour. Shame, eh?

"The Labour Govt. past and present has done these things to save jobs and people’s futures, that’s where the business spivs have been able to blackmail us."

Arguably, no one's future is safeguarded by propping up failing industries. No matter how much public money is pumped into propping up a business, it's just staving off the inevitable. Wouldn't it be better to spend the money on reskilling the workers who are leaving a failing industry?

I reckon the death of heavy industry on the 70s and 80s would've been ameliorated if the suddenly unemployed had been given some hope and a way in to the new service economy. What do you think?

(Nick) 09:22Companies don’t just make more money for their shareholders, many of them are out and out crooks and they have to be stopped, treated the same as any other crook is treated, the snivelling little liar from XL or whatever their name is should be behind bars, he gave a tearful interview about how bad he felt and it turns out he was taking bookings a couple of hours before pulling the rug on his customers, a real Thatcherite capitalist rat.

There is no such thing as a purely capitalist economy anywhere in the world, money will always be spent in an unprofitable way for certain things which are necessary. What we have to do is put better legislation in place to prevent the capitalist exploiters from cheating the system.

Closing a loss making factory in a remote area for instance might cost more in paying benefits and coping with the fall out of peoples lives ruined, Check the 80’s check Thatcher, check coal mines etc.

"The Labour Govt. past and present has done these things to save jobs and people’s futures, that’s where the business spivs have been able to blackmail us."

Councillor, you know and I know that the shoring up of Northern Rock was not about saving jobs or savers' cash. It was about shoring up votes in a Labour heartland. How many NR employees have been made redundant since nationalisation?

How much has the government's consultancy friends "earned" since nationalisation - sorry that should read how much have the government milked the taxpayer for in order to enrich their consultancy friends?

I agree, white-collar criminals should go to chokey. Sadly, the Serious Fraud Office has no teeth under Labour, so it can't pursue these people effectively. The government has even intervened in its operations: for example, pulling the plug on the investigation of fraud in the case of BAE. Now that's how to look out for the little man...

"Check the 80’s check Thatcher, check coal mines etc."

I'd rather look at ship-building in the North East. The decline and eventual death of the industry through the 20th century couldn't have been prevented by government grants: there wasn't a market for the product. A tragedy for the people involved in the industry, no doubt. But they can learn new skills, relocate and take up new work. Helping people in failing industries do that is where money should be spent, not on keeping an unprofitable and unproductive factory open.

(And to head off the "we shouldn't break up communities" argument, lots of industrial towns wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the industry which sustained them. If they can diversify and thrive, great. If not, time to move to another community.)

Erm, no: British ships cost more than those produced in other countries, so purchasers didn't want to buy them. No market...

What's wrong with reskilling people? Propping a company up purely to keep people in jobs is daft: you might as well set them to work building pyramids on the Yorkshire Moors, then demolish the edifices once they're complete so the workforce can start again.

Surely it'd be better to spend money on giving people new skills so they can actually participate in the new economy rather than do busy work on the fringes?

You don't make an argument for why some communities deserve special protection once the reason for their existence dies.

'This is an obvious fake, Queen Betty is not qualified to flip burgers.'

That's a slur! If she's so talentless how come she rose to the rank of Queen. Terry, remember the poor lassie started out an ordinary princess. If she hadn't worked so hard she's have ended her days as one, just like her sister.

Your opinion only stands up if you get rid of everything that does not make a profit, start with the NHS then the armed forces then all the inherited wealth of the upper classes the braying royal donkeys etc. etc. BAE ? What do you think I would have done ? Do you need it spelling out.

You do me an injustice I never said the Queen Betty couldn’t be trained to flip burgers I said she hadn’t been trained, even then I have my doubts, the fact that she rose to the top tells you quite a bit about the other royals.

"Your opinion only stands up if you get rid of everything that does not make a profit"

Wrong. It stands up if I say 'private enterprise incapable of sustaining itself shouldn't be supported by public funds'. To my mind, the NHS, armed forces, education service and legal system are things the state should run, while industry is something it should regulate but otherwise leave alone.

Here's an example of why. In the late 70s, unproductive car plants in Northern Islands received big grants from the British government to prop them up. As soon as Thatcher got in, she cut the funds and the financial problems faced by the factories were revealed. This meant loads of people lost their jobs overnight and were sharply plunged into poverty.

The lesson I'd draw from this is that people can't rely on the government for cash, as the administration and policies could change at any time. Surely it would've been better to spend the money in the 70s reskilling those car workers so that the factories could die a more graceful death and their employees could move jobs and be self-sufficient rather being forced into penury?

Do what you like with the royals, I don't think a subsidised monarchy is great shakes.

"BAE ? What do you think I would have done ? Do you need it spelling out?"

Yes please. Would you unequivocally condemn the Labour government's actions as morally indefensible and motivated by a toadying attitude to the arms industry? Perhaps you'd prefer to use the term 'corrupting the rule of law'?

Or fall back on ad hominem attacks/ignore the actual question/obfuscate wildly.

I didn't give a list of people I think should be subsidised. What I said was that subsidies often paper over the cracks (as they are with the banking crisis at the moment, and as they did with the Brisith car industry last century), and can be withdrawn by subsequent administrations with disasterous results.

I thought you'd support the idea of giving workers a better chance of staying in work when the economic base of the country shifts as it has done in the last 30 or 40 years. But it seems you'd rather sustain industries through centralised payouts than empower the people employed by them.

To clarify, I think the state should support the people it represents. It shouldn't use tax money to prop up failing banks crippled by the pyramid schemes they've been selling, heavy industries which are losing their competitive edge due to the emergence of foreign markets, or anything in between.

Ah Terry, as I asked you a direct question I was just anticipating being called nasty names again...

I would've thought you'd have stronger objections than simply having a grumble when your party uses its powers to prevent an investigative body from bringing a case against the corruption in the arms trade!

Or do you support the gov's broader position: that trade is more important than an ethical foreign policy?

“simply having a grumble” is weak and highly subjective, it demonstrates one of two things, either you nothing about me or the labour party or you have given up.

“that trade is more important than an ethical foreign policy?” Is even weaker and again sounds like we are back in the fifth form, you might want to tell us about the Govt’s ethical foreign policy, or lack of it and then criticise it. You should be paying me for this.

That's patronising: you think miners or shipbuilders could only be reskilled to stack supermarket shelves? I think you're revealing your own prejudices there. I simply said that money should be invested in giving people options on a personal level, not at sustaining institutions which aren't viable.

What don't I understand? Did you get a vote or have any influence on whether or not the government should intervene in an massive fraud case? I doubt it: any objections you had probably counted for less than a little grumble to those at the top of the Labour food chain.

I would give you a list of the lack of ethics in Labour's foreign policy, but I think you'd just accuse me of verbosity. I guess you could start with, er, Iraq though.

What's with the '5th form' stuff, old man? Taking debating tips from someone who once accused me of being a nazi is a bit rich.

"We will not permit the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression." Robin Cook, quoted, Ian Black, 'Cook gives ethics priority,' The Guardian, May 13, 1997

Fast-forward to the BAE/SFO debacle...

Or how about the fact that Britain was the biggest weapons supplier to Indonesia in Labour's first year in office? Blair personally approved 11 arms deals. Just to refresh your memory, Indonesia was busy attempting to violently supress East Timor's moves towards independence at the time.

Perhaps ignoring Russian actions in Chechnya for diplomatic reasons? It was "quite simply, off the radar screen" in talks (John Pilger, 'Nothing in my 30 years of reporting wars compares with the present propaganda dressed as journalism,' New Statesman, July 12, 1999).

Also, the whole Iraq debacle. It can't be mentioned enough when we talk about Britain's foreign policy in the last 11 years.

Iraq again ! What’s the Labour response to these points are we to assume that they have agreed with your interpretation of these events, or haven’t you checked ?

If John Pilger on the Labour Govt. is the best you can do then you are really struggling, some people might see his comments as rather predictable, I read him regularly in the New Statesman and I think I could write his column for him when it refers to the Labour Party, even you could.

Iraq again ! What’s the Labour response to these points are we to assume that they have agreed with your interpretation of these events, or haven’t you checked ?

If John Pilger on the Labour Govt. is the best you can do then you are really struggling, some people might see his comments as rather predictable, I read him regularly in the New Statesman and I think I could write his column for him when it refers to the Labour Party, even you could.

I haven't run away from the argument! You just brought up miners and shipbuilders!

"I am a supporter of state intervention for the good of the people, training coal miners and ship builders to stack supermarket shelves is a betrayal."

I didn't say anything about limiting what people could retrain as. You did.

Seems I should restate my position for you. I support state intervention, but not at the institutional level. Public funds should be used to help individuals gain the skills they require to work, not tie them into an failing industry. For the life of me, I can't understand why a socialist would object to that.

I don't see a problem with mentioning Iraq. After all, it's a war we've been involved in for many years now, and it hasn't been the most humanitarian of interventions what with Abu Ghraib, firebombing Fallujah and all. I don't notice these things cropping up too often in Labour's narrative of events, though.

And I suppose the other examples I gave don't merit a response from you.

Ok, here's an example I'd expect you to ger behind. The lack of UK intervention in (and even tacit support of) the conflict between Lebanon and Israel in July 2006, which allowed the IDF the raize a large area beyond its neighbour's border. Did that decision have an ethical dimension?

I think Pilger's comments are predictable, mainly because they echo lots of other criticisms of Labour. Doesn't mean they're inaccurate though.

“I didn't say anything about limiting what people could retrain as. You did” That’s right and you immediately deliberately misrepresented my meaning, you are not nearly sharp enough, no doubt you have been told that before.

“ I can't understand why a socialist would object to that “ another cack handed lie, you are so obvious. You were showing signs of improving as well, maybe you’ve just rushed things a wee bit.

I'll repeat myself for you: you brought up the idea of limiting what people could retrain to do - and impuned the noble shelf stackers of this proud country in the process. I'm not sure why you mentioned it in the first place, actually, as I didn't put any restrictions on what new skills workers could acquire.

Can you explain why, as a socialist, you do disagree with the state intervening to help people directly rather than to subsidise industries in need of a handout?

I remember exactly why you called me a Nazi. It was because I suggested that manifesto pledges should be more binding than they are currently. Power to the people? How fascisitic!

I find Israel's foreign policy abhorrent. But I also find it painful to see our government wring its hands and make vague statements rather than explicitly condemn things like the conflict in Lebanon. Russia merited sterner diplomatic language over Georgia!

(Nick) 16:18Must we go over everything repeatedly, you deliberately misinterpreted what I said about retraining.

“ Can you explain why, as a socialist, you do disagree with the state intervening to help people directly rather than to subsidise industries in need of a handout?” I didn’t say that but don’t let that get in your way, you are consistent.

You said that manifesto pledges should be more binding than they are, and I called you a Nazi for that ? Now I’m calling you a liar.

Gordon Brown did not stand on the sidelines when he addressed the Knesset just recently, he told them a few things that they did not want to hear, some of the members walked out.

Well, what are you saying about the level at which the state intervenes? You seemed to take umbrage at my suggestion of retraining workers. Do you actually agree with me that that would be a better use of public money?

Did he? Because I thought he made a series of statements on Iran's nuclear capabilites which played well to Israeli hawks. He even referred directly to Iran's "nuclear weapons programme" - a program which even the American intelligence services believe was stopped in 2003.

I'll dig out the whole Nazi fiasco for your edification.

But I'll leave you with this. The OECD reckon Britain is the most corrupt it's been since 1995 thanks to, among other things, the BAE affair, cash for honours and the lack of probity over MP's expenses. We're now the most corrupt developed nation, according to their research. Top stuff.

"Ahoy! Although the SNP may not be delivering on all their manifesto commitments, has Salmond ever had to have his personal barrister say the following in front of a public court?

"Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation."

Indeed not, that'd be our current Prime Minister! Yep, Gordon Brown had his legal representative tell Brighton County Court that, effectively, voters shouldn't expect anything promised in a manifesto to actually be delivered once Labour are in power.

In the interests of transparency, this was in relation to a case brought by a member of UKIP over the promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Whether or not you think UKIP are right-wing scumbags, it's quite the brass-neck to come out with that line when challenged, eh?"

Terry Kelly (August 8)

"Are you saying that a failure to deliver on a manifesto promise should be against the law ? Are you some kind of Nazi or something ?

If someone fails to deliver you get to remember that at election time.

I’m OK with that and we will remind people at election time. Perhaps you could have found a better example, unless you are in favour of UKIP that is."

“Do you actually agree with me that that would be a better use of public money?”

No I don’t but that doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to retraining it has it’s place but it is not the only answer.

Politics is wee bit more tricky than you could understand Iran and nuclear arms are part of the equation it’s a political football, what he had to say about Palestine was far more important on this occasion.

“We're now the most corrupt developed nation” Can you show me the bit where the U.K. Govt. accepts these findings ?

What are the answers then? I'm still unconvinced that sustaining an industry past it's natural shelf-life is a good idea.

He did say some good things about the wall running thorugh Bethlehem, but then again he also repeated the infmaous mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's comment about Iran's relationship to Israel. On the whole, it seems he did more pandering to the Knesset than otherwise.

Seeing as we're signed-up members of the OECD (one of 37), I guess we do accept their research as valid. The Department of Business has promised to address the OECD's concerns and has proposed tougher anti-bribery laws. That do you?

Being a member does not mean that you accept everything said, you are showing your totalitarian tendencies again, the kind of attitude that Hitler would have applauded you for, are you some kind of Nazi or something ?

According to the FT, the government is in the process of reviewing the research and has already proposed tougher anti-bribery laws as a result. So, as it stands, it seems they're on the way to accepting and addressing it.

Alright, you little tinker, tell me what's totalitarian about me citing a piece of research by a body funded and suppported by 37 governments (including ours) that alleges our state is corrupt?

I'd like less politically motivated interference with the legal system. How on earth does that make me a fascist?

How much more accepted do you want it to be at the moment? It's just been announced; it's being reviewed; aspects of it, such as the problems with bribery, are already being acted upon.

I hope you're not saying we can't trust politicians to deliver the tougher new laws they're promising.

From your second to last comment:

"you are showing your totalitarian tendencies again, the kind of attitude that Hitler would have applauded you for, are you some kind of Nazi or something?"

I don't see how you can twist that to mean i) you are not accusing me of holding totalitarian ideals and ii) you are not conflating that with Nazism specifically.

"is English your first language?"

Hilariously, I'm a professional writer and editor with a first in English Lit. from a top-five university. Wahey! Is it yours? When you construct sentences like the following, I doubt it:

"Taxpayers today have to foot the bill when the immoral Capitalist gamblers schemes go pear shaped, they gamble with their customers money and get out after the crash with plenty saved away, lawyers make sure it can’t be touched, parasite is too good a word for them."

And because it's nice to help people, here's how you should have written the last sentence I quoted:

"Today's taxpayers have to foot the bill when the schemes of immoral capitalists go pear-shaped. These bankers risk their customers' money and escape the consequences of their gambles when crashes occur, siphoning off profits and hiding behind lawyers. Parasite is too good a word for them."

If you like, I'll email you a few grammar rules which could really help the clarity of your writing.

There is a golden rule which I adopted when I started blogging. People write to me constantly and in many cases they make mistakes, grammar, spelling etc. you probably have done this to, despite your glittering educational achievements, and your no doubt great success as a writer.

I have never pointed out a mistake in anyone’s comments as long as I can understand what they mean.

It is almost unheard of for bloggers to do this and it is a clear sign that the complainer has lost, their credibility as well as the argument.

Perhaps you could tell me when the clarity of my writing became important enough for you to make such a pompous fool of yourself ?

Has it always been the case or was it when you began to realize that you were not going to win ? You are not nearly as clever as you would like us to think are you ? Intelligent confident people don’t behave like you.

Hee hee, you gracelessly impuned my use of English so I figured a graceless reply would be in order. At least we can salute the comprehensive system for not leaving me in the 16% of adults with entry level 3 or below literacy skills.

Still, when you're bandying about terms like 'totalitarian' and 'Nazi', I think it's even more important than usual that you use precise language. So, once again:

"you are showing your totalitarian tendencies again, the kind of attitude that Hitler would have applauded you for, are you some kind of Nazi or something?"

I don't see how you can twist that to mean i) you are not accusing me of holding totalitarian ideals and ii) you are not conflating that with Nazism specifically.

Nah, I just thought it was funny that you were criticising my use of English when your use of technical political terms was so shakey.

You know me, eh? Excellent. Perhaps you can show the deep understanding you've gleaned by explaining this statement then:

"you are showing your totalitarian tendencies again, the kind of attitude that Hitler would have applauded you for, are you some kind of Nazi or something?"

You explicitly say there that I have "totalitarian tendencies" that "Hitler would have applauded" and then ask, in a rhetorical fashion, "are you some kind of Nazi?".

Dunno why you're getting chippy about my education. You're always telling people they can't understand politics because they don't have any direct experience in it. If you can speak from a privileged position on politics, why can't I on language?

“Dunno why you're getting chippy about my education” I don’t often find myself dealing with such a well educated man, from a top 5 Uni. as well, and a real writer to boot, I feel quite humble, honestly.

But come on, using very specific words with incredibly negative connotations incorrectly, then asking "Is English your first laguage?" while completely refusing to address the fact you quite clearly called me totalitarian and Nazi is bound to get anyone reacting, no? Let alone a professional pedant.

On the contrary you have delighted me, I can’t remember the last time that I was arguing with someone who so completely lost it. I’m dining out on your bout of self praise, “top 5 Uni. degree and a professional writer” my arm is getting a bit sore reeling you in though.

Put it down to experience, learn from it, pride before a fall etc. In future you can remind yourself about the time you were taken to the cleaners by a guy who failed his eleven plus and left school at 15 with no qualifications. That should stop you from making an a**e of yourself.

“Ok Terry, I'm sorry I've upset you” on the contrary you have delighted me, I can’t remember the last time that I was arguing with someone who so completely lost it. I’m dining out on your bout of self praise, “top 5 Uni. degree and a professional writer” my arm is getting a bit sore reeling you in though.

Put it down to experience, learn from it, pride before a fall etc. In future you can remind yourself about the time you were taken to the cleaners by a guy who failed his eleven plus an left school at 15 with no qualifications. That should stop you from making an a**e of yourself.

Links

I represent Ward 4 Paisley North West. I'm a Socialist who believes in equality, peace and the redistribution of wealth, I opposeRacism, Sexism, Sectarianism, Nationalism and any kind of discrimination. Best wishes for a Socialist future.What appears on this website are my personal views and opinions. Not those of the Labour Party, Renfrewshire Council or anyone else, mine only.

Readers will note the contradiction of having Amazon books here and the more ethical Housman's books above. I have decided to keep it here and continue to pass the renumeration from them to a good Socialist cause.